Forum Topic

Mr Brigo'Oh dear, Mr Hawkes has reached the point of having to change the subject as even he can see now what a total shambles this whole Iran fiasco is.'The 'Iran fiasco' as you call it is an attempt by our ally the US to stop an undemocratic theocratic rogue state from acquiring nuclear weapons with which it can threaten Israel with annihilation and as its official statements have made clear also threaten us for taking the, all be it lukewarm position, of supporting Trump in what he is attempting. I have no doubt that Iran's nuclear potential is thankfully damaged.The fiasco as you call it was solely arranged by the Iranians who are now in their circle of decline, lashing out  at their Arab oil producing neighbours.For what purpose ?The US is self sufficient in oil and gas and so could be the UK if sanctimonious 'lil Ed got off his high horse and let us exploit these resources.You probably see it as an unprovoked and bullying attack by an imperialist bully against a poor, downtrodden, well meaning Islamic state, and think it right and proper they should have these weapons.Not withstanding, one which funds terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah and has agents recently caught out on the streets of London in the acts of threatening Jewish UK citizens.If so, please tell me what they want them for ?Who would want to try to conquer and govern such a mess of a place ?What's it got that we want ?Were Trump's actions a fiasco ?One can only quote an apocryphal statement Chairman Mao is said to have made to a high-level U.S. politician during the 1970s, and they began to talk about the French Revolution.When the Chinese official was asked about the impact of this momentous historical event he replied: “It’s too soon to say”.Same with Trump and Iran.But at least he has drawn a line in the sand (sic) and is showing himself willing to lead the battle against Islamism even if Sir Scared Starmer is reluctant to march behind him fearing a stab in the back from Ange.My original post was just indicating to TDS sufferer Mr Ainsworth that rather than bang on all the time about the iniquities and atrocities carried out by the US, he might if he supports Iran or thinks its actions and intentions are benign, do so openly and unequivocally.Or address some UK domestic issues that his Labour Party are unwilling to face.Mainly for petty reasons such as losing the Muslim vote in upcoming local elections.I have no doubt all of this will go over your head Mr Brigo🤔😫 but I did try to make my position clear.

John Hawkes ● 16d

"I wonder if the response would have been the same if a democrat president had requested assistance."Wonder no more."President Lyndon B. Johnson repeatedly asked British Prime Minister Harold Wilson to send British troops to Vietnam between 1964 and 1967, but Wilson adamantly refused. Despite significant pressure, including requests for a "marching band" or a single regiment (the Black Watch), Wilson kept UK combat troops out to avoid domestic backlash. ""marching band" or a single regiment (the Black Watch)"![That sounds almost Trumpian-style]Key details of the pressure and refusal include:The Request: Johnson wanted military involvement to show international support for the U.S. war effort.The Refusal: Wilson declined the requests due to pressure from his own Labour Party, the Treasury, and potential negative public opinion.Diplomatic Fallout: The refusal strained the "special relationship" between the two leaders. Johnson was furious, and in some meetings, behaved with "diplomatic sarcasm," according to The Guardian and Reddit user discussions.Support Apart from Troops: While declining to send troops, Wilson did not publicly criticize the war and provided other support to the U.S..Financial Leverage: In 1967, Johnson reportedly linked U.S. support for British sterling to the deployment of troops, which Wilson continued to resist."Anyway, that is the publicly accepted story. In reality "While the UK officially deployed no combat troops, small numbers of British SAS personnel were unofficially present in Vietnam. They served primarily as advisors, trainers, or in intelligence roles, with some attached to Australian (SASR) units, US Special Forces, or operating in covert, non-combatant capacities."Helping/not helping, a la Starmer.---------------------------------"When Wilson was asked by a Labour party colleague why he did not condemn the Vietnam War, he responded: “we can’t kick our creditors in the balls”."

David Ainsworth ● 19d

You imply, Ivonne, that Iranians don’t want their country bombed. That is clearly not true, otherwise there would not have been celebrations in Teheran and elsewhere. Obviously people don’t want their homes or schools destroyed but many Iranians are happy that the regime’s outposts have been attacked.Is it ‘poppycock’ to suggest that many contributors to the Forum are more interested in criticising Trump than addressing the issues? There have been endless tirades against Trump, including the latest one from Richard, but has there been a single discussion on the Forum on how to deal with Iran? You state that ‘there is no way that people on the Forum feel no sympathy and compassion for the Iranian people’. There may be sympathy but in some cases this is outweighed by hatred of America and Trump in particular. At least two contributors have  even advanced arguments in support of the regime. One implied that it was acceptable for Iran to produce a nuclear bomb given that Israel has a nuclear capability. Another cast doubt on the reports that the regime killed 30 000 of its own citizens, for which he said there was no ‘evidence’.I am not sure what Trump and Netanyahu thought about the likely consequences of an attack and I don’t know what they think now.  But I don’t want them to pull out now leaving the regime in place. There is one proposal that I would make. I would like the Americans and Israelis to issue a personal warning to all the psychopaths and criminals who work for the Iranian security forces who shoot protesters or anyone out on the streets. I am sure that the American and Israeli intelligence networks in Iran have lists of these individuals. The message should be ‘stop or we shall take you out, whether you are in your garrisons or police stations or whether you are at home’.

Steven Rose ● 21d

Hello Steven,Your initial question was:  "..what should be done about the Iranian regime?"  You did not answer it in your initial post and neither do you do so in this one.Are you a politician by any chance?  You provide the ideal solution but you do not suggest how to go about it and how to achieve the goals.You say "that the American-Israeli attack is more popular in Teheran than Putney." Hmmmmmmmmm - Politician speak? What the Iranians want is for their current leaders to go away, not to have their homes or schools destroyed.  When the protests in December were so horrifically repressed, the Iranians did ask Trump for help.  Are you surprised?You also say:  "Many of the contributors to the Forum seem more interested in criticising America and Israel  than discussing the key issues viz how to stop Iran from slaughtering its own citizens, fomenting terrorism in the Middle East and building a nuclear bomb."  What poppycock!!!  Just think for a minute.  The bombing in Iran went ahead eventually and, after two weeks, there is this sense of "what now?"  The aim was to "clear" all the leaders.  I do not think Trump and/or Netanyahu considered that Iran would:  (a) try to defend itself, (b) attack neighbouring countries, (c) close off the Strait of Hormuz. I am sure they thought that the bombs would end the problem and that Trump would have a say on the successors.There is no way that people on this Forum feel no sympathy and compassion for the Iranian people.  But the fact that we do not like the leaders of Iran does not mean that we like Trump and/or Netanyahu.  I know it is a concept you find very difficult to comprehend.  Please try. 

Ivonne Holliday ● 21d

Steven, I don't think I oe others were worried about Khamenie being attacked. I did make an observation that it could set a precedent that all recognised leaders were now gair game if their opponents could assassinated them. (It was speculated that Putin had that in mind for Zelensky, I suspect Putin might be in people's sights as well.) I'm sure many Iranians are pleased to see the demise of Khamenie, but the result is they now have his son instead, who many think is more of a hardliner and may also want to avenge many of his family who were killed.I doubt that was Trump's desired outcome but given there are supprters of the incumbent regime perhaps not surprising? I suspect Trump and Hesgeth underestimated Iran's response in the same way Putin thought he could subdue Ukraine in a few days? Perhaps it was a mistake to assume that just because Iranians dislike their government they like being collateral damage in bombing raids?Trump's big problem is going to be his own electorate in the mid terms: if energy costs fuel inflation and a subdued market sinks their 401K pensions, etc he probably loses Congress, particularly, but let's hope not, too many body bags start arriving in Washington. His anti immigration policies, while popular for illegal immigrants,aren't popular with Latinaos who are being racially profiled - so more votes at risk there in the mid term?It must be in the back of his mind that a significant loss of Congress could mean the start of impeachment for him, Hesketh and others ...Yes, it is speculation about many uncertainties, but with rising oil prices, he's created a problem for nearly every ones economy, and it doesn't look like he and Hesgeth did much scenario planning before launching his abrupt attack, does it? Happy to be proved wrong.

Michael Ixer ● 21d

Carter'Like your ally Hawkes, you're very good at hiding behind endless questions but don't suggest any answers - perhaps not surprisingly since no one,  least of all Trump, knows what constructive action to take in Iran'.I will start with another question - "Do you believe that Iran with nuclear weapons would be a danger to world peace and countries around it at least in the Middle East" ?If not - fine.Just say so.I do.If you do believe it, what would you do about it ?I am quite ambivalent as to whether the Iranian regime should be toppled.I just believe it should be contained so it cannot harm us and our Western allies.However I believe the major effort to contain or topple its government needs to come from those most affected - the Iranians themselves.We can support and assist them by maintaining their access to western media so they know what is really happening in their country and how their rulers treat any dissenters.Murder them in great number.And we can at least put the screws on the country and restrict its malign effects upon ourselves by political and economic pressure.Reduce our trade with it; deny it western technology; minimise access by its young to western popular culture; confiscate the billions of its assets that its 'religious' leaders have squirrelled away in Knightsbridge and Western banks; restrict their personal travel access to the west for shopping and other personal gratification etc.Have I missed anything ?All Islamist fellow travellers and supporters of the Iranian regime such as yourself can do is slag off Trump as being 'deranged'.Pretty childish really for someone like you who obviously believes that the mad mullahs of Iran are exemplifiers of calm, reasoned and civilised political behaviour.

John Hawkes ● 21d

Ms HollidayAs usual you contradict yourself and make comments after declaring that you are not qualified to do so.'I cannot tell you what should be done about the Iranian regime because I am not qualified to do so.  I do not have diplomatic or military training. These professionals are in a much better position to make suggestions than I am.  What about you?  What do you think should be done about the Iranian regime?'More to the point what do you personally think ?Do you see Iran, the sponsors of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that wish to annihilate Israel, as well as being a country whose leaders are more than willing to execute its own citizens, often women, that disagree with it, as a force for good in the Middle East ?And governed by unelected theocratic leaders espousing millenarianism or apocalypticism: 'Belief in an impending cataclysm or spiritual reckoning that will affirm the group’s values and reorder society'.And now these people have atomic weapons or the means to develop them which if, as part of their theology, they chose to use them would have effects that would impact us (ie YOU) in the UK. Your only contribution to the debate - "Slagging off Trump is very well deserved".Pathetic.But we now know when put simplistically that you are in favour of anything the Islamic state of Iran does but against anything the US does even though on the whole we share most of its political, economic and social values.And for many of us that includes values based upon the Christian religion.

John Hawkes ● 21d